Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

#81

Post by talkin »

aembleton wrote: post #77
larsnystrom wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's ironic, however they seem to use an inert version of the share button. The default share button by Facebook contacts Facebook when you view the page, doesn't matter whether you click the button or not. The one used by EFF only contacts Facebook when you click it.

It's still directing traffic to them and providing content for them to monetise. Also, it doesn't use the nofollow tag.

Spreading the message inside FB helps the mission. The people who already stopped don’t need to be convinced anymore. ;)

But sure, ironic and counterintuitive.

Re: Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

#82

Post by ffsm8 »

SapporoChris wrote: post #61
dylan604 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this rhetorical? Nothing. Every website that adds their code will be tracking you. Every friend, acquaintance, or anyone that you’ve shared your contact with for what ever reason that has given them access to their contacts has provided your info for you. There’s nothing you can do about it. At the rate we’re going, it will soon be law that you have to allow them to track you. The Zuck just hasn’t figured out yet…

"Is this rhetorical? Nothing" Nonsense, and the article addresses this. "Block Meta’s Trackers"

It's not nonsense. Meta will have a shadow profile of pretty much everyone, wherever the person in question is blocking their trackers or not.

It's still a good idea to block them, because it will reduce the amount of information they'll have about you, making their shadow profile less useful

Nonetheless, Meta knows you exist and will almost certainly be able to tell some things about you

Re: Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

#83

Post by SapporoChris »

ffsm8 wrote: post #82
SapporoChris wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Is this rhetorical? Nothing" Nonsense, and the article addresses this. "Block Meta’s Trackers"

It's not nonsense. Meta will have a shadow profile of pretty much everyone, wherever the person in question is blocking their trackers or not. It's still a good idea to block them, because it will reduce the amount of information they'll have about you, making their shadow profile less useful Nonetheless, Meta knows you exist and will almost certainly be able to tell some things about you

"What can I do, under US law, to minimize what they store about me and my behavior, or at least keep tabs on them?" "...Nothing" "Nonsense, and the article addresses this. 'Block Meta’s Trackers'

The parent said nothing could be done. I say that's nonsense and listed a thing that could be done. You respond it's not nonsense and then list the same thing I mentioned.

I am very confused by your thought process.

Re: Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

#84

Post by barrell »

mc3301 wrote: post #21
barrell wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also pretty easy to stop using Google - Kagi and proton will get you 70% of the way there

Google is more than just a search engine for many people... Shared calendars, documents, maps, mail, mobile OS, browser, etc.

Kagi has a great browser, proton has mail and calendars (I mean everything has calendars, there isn’t really much lock in there), maps are (location dependent) very fungible.

The OS and documents are trickier as I’ve never used either but I did only say 70%. The thing I would find hardest would be converting sign in with google accounts

If the average person was so inclined, they could probably degoogle themselves 70% in one day, 90% in a month, and 98% in a year with very little cognitive load

Re: Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

#85

Post by mikae1 »

ericjmorey wrote: post #56
mikae1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Swede, the Amazon comment is funny. They came here perhaps two years ago and everybody I know agrees they suck and can not compete with our local alternatives. They're not cheaper and the website is an utter mess of auto translations and dark patterns. Order flash storage and pray it's not counterfeit. We use Prisjakt[1] to compare prices and price history between shops. About Google... Yes, YouTube is hard for…

It took 20+ years for Amazon to supplant the retail infrastructure in the US. They may just be getting started in Sweden.

Highly (and sadly) likely. They're obviously not in a hurry.

Re: Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

#86

Post by oefnak »

the_gipsy wrote: post #65
pickledoyster wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's easy to stop using Facebook. It's a lot harder to stop using Google or Amazon. Not in my country, where Facebook owns basically the entire messaging space through Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp. I have been able to switch my default search engine, email provider, mobile OS, office suite, etc. from Google no problem, but the network effect has been too strong to get most of my friends out of Meta's ad netwo…

Not solution to the network problem, but you can bridge/puppet Whatsapp, Instagram, telegram, to matrix.org.

How can you bridge WhatsApp to matrix? Can you still send pictures?

Re: Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

#87

Post by dylan604 »

SapporoChris wrote: post #83
ffsm8 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not nonsense. Meta will have a shadow profile of pretty much everyone, wherever the person in question is blocking their trackers or not. It's still a good idea to block them, because it will reduce the amount of information they'll have about you, making their shadow profile less useful Nonetheless, Meta knows you exist and will almost certainly be able to tell some things about you

"What can I do, under US law, to minimize what they store about me and my behavior, or at least keep tabs on them?" "...Nothing" "Nonsense, and the article addresses this. 'Block Meta’s Trackers' The parent said nothing could be done. I say that's nonsense and listed a thing that could be done. You respond it's not nonsense and then list the same thing I mentioned. I am very confused by your thought process.

Then you have a very easily confused process yourself. They did not make such a declarative statement as you suggest. They just said that blocking them is still a good idea even though it's not going to stop Meta from knowing about you. Being able to see the details in someone's comment is easier when you don't have a preconceived agenda

Re: Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

#88

Post by dylan604 »

SapporoChris wrote: post #61
dylan604 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this rhetorical? Nothing. Every website that adds their code will be tracking you. Every friend, acquaintance, or anyone that you’ve shared your contact with for what ever reason that has given them access to their contacts has provided your info for you. There’s nothing you can do about it. At the rate we’re going, it will soon be law that you have to allow them to track you. The Zuck just hasn’t figured out yet…

"Is this rhetorical? Nothing" Nonsense, and the article addresses this. "Block Meta’s Trackers"

Great, what about people that cannot install blockers?

What about sites that sell the data they collect to Meta? If you think Meta's trackers are the only way Meta collects data, then you just need to learn more about data collection.

Re: Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

#89

Post by bitcurious »

handoflixue wrote: post #36
ioajfg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, the EFF has been very pro free-speech. Now it seems like they're in the free-speech-but-only-if-we-agree-with-you camp.

Can you provide examples? I don't feel like opting out of data collection is a very good example there. I definitely feel like the ACLU took a turn for the worse in that direction a few years ago. I'll be sad if the EFF is also headed that direction - they've struck me as one of the only ones that's still willing to stand on principle

In this very post, the EFF premise is that you are upset about Meta’s shift to less censorship. Meta’s new policies are a win for free speech.

Re: Mad at Meta? Don't Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

#90

Post by computerthings »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #74
computerthings wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump is neither the government, nor is he "the laws", nor allowed to make laws. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/what-...

That's the way it's supposed to work. But it requires both the courts to say so, and the executive to follow along.

Even when the executive doesn't follow along, the President never is "the government", and never "the law", in the context of what the comment to I replied called "hilarious". When I say there should be human rights, and that some tyrant sucks, that's not hilarious just because that tyrant has goons ignoring the law.
Post reply on HN